Current assault marines should be 5-6 points.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Bharring**

Again, with the "VV are currently more cost effective at this" - why does that mean ASM will never be more cost effective.

Further, VV being better than ASM don't make ASM worse than other units that are worse than VV.

I'm not sure what the value of that statement was, if any.

**Insectum7**

Assault marines have the maneuverability to aggressively tie up units for 2 points cheaper than VV.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Assault marines have the maneuverability to aggressively tie up units for 2 points cheaper than VV.

And then do less damage for the points and then the unit falls back and then your unit gets shot.

So at that point you NEED to do damage. Assault Marines don't cut it whatsoever. At least Vanguard can do a bunch more before dying.

You aren't gonna be using 10 points for anything you didn't already buy anyway.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Again, with the "VV are currently more cost effective at this" - why does that mean ASM will never be more cost effective.

Further, VV being better than ASM don't make ASM worse than other units that are worse than VV.

I'm not sure what the value of that statement was, if any.

Because it's literally a 2 point difference for that much of a difference in effectiveness. One unit is already doing the job and doing it better. Why are you taking the lesser option? Vanguard aren't even that great either! So why would you spend 10 points less for a squad that's WAY worse in performance?

So Assault Marines are a badly designed unit AND ineffective due to other options.

**Bharring**

I dunno. ASM do a lot more damage/point to most non-fly vehicles. Not so much in terms of HP damage, but in terms of shutting them down or forcing their hands.

Not every unit in the game contributes just dakka (range or CC) to the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
The discussion is how many points ASM *should* be. Not how many points they are.

Unless you're talking about units "worse than ASM". At which point, there are a gakton more units more overshandowed in their respective codexes than ASM. 2ppm difference vs what you get isn't good, sure. But there are many other units that pay as much or more points for even *less* than offenders in their dexes.

Because, by that metric, we can add Conscripts and Vets and Dire Avengers and Vypers and Hornets and War Walkers and Wraithlords and... well far too many units that are more overshadowed than ASM. "Trash" doesn't mean "My dex has better options".

**Xenomancers**

Bharring wrote:
"Units that only work for one chapter can never qualify as "good" to me. Or even "decent", really."
Except Alaitoc. Because knifeears.

"You're only ever running them as Raven Guard. So for 1CP the mobility issue is non-existent."
For a heavy gun unit, sure. For a mobile skirmisher/bully hell no. Mobility is crucial for that role, long after deployment.

"Why would you want ASM over assault cents? Assault cents can do some real damage."
Sure, Assault Cents can do damage. But you don't take ASM for damage. Very different role.

"Wraithblades"
Because Termies work well when you're not Marines. Sure, they're 3W T6, but they're also 3+ 7++, no native DS, no guns.

"Incubi"
Because everybody loves running VV on foot giving everyone a power weapon (and no stormshield). That's basically what Incubi are. They certainly hit harder than ASM. But they don't move like ASM. And they're even less durable.

"Falcons"
Lets go ahead and drop the QuadLas pred's firepower by half - that's fair if we cut it's price by 25%, right? It's not a terrible unit, I could be persuaded that I was wrong on this specific one (so we're down to only a couple dozen worse units listed)?

"NightSpinner"
What makes you think that gak is mid tier?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do think Marines could really use 2A base across the board. And ASM/Tacs 11ppm base.

Would it suprise you that the night spinner is actually one of the most efficient sources of damage in the eldar arsenal? Why doesn't it get played? Because why would you ever take it over a firm prism which has access to one of the best stratagems in the game? I play it for fun sometimes - really underrated unit. It's certainly not a top 10 worst units. Some units have high invo saves - Great at killing bike units - basically worth shooting at anything that isn't t8.

Wraith Blades are an undesirable unit because spears do more damage (than anything in the game) and have 4x the mobility - they certainly are tough with t6 3W 4++ Tougher than custodians and cost less. Their weapons are really what is lacking but they will tear up infantry though. The key thing here is t6 is a great toughness breakpoint. str 3 wounds on 6 str 5 wounds on 5 - very few weapons are good at killing this unit.

Listing a bunch of units that aren't actually bottom 10 isn't an arguement. To be bottom 10 you have to suck at everything for your cost. Storm gaurdians are a bad unit and dev cents and tactical marines are the only units listed that belonged on a top 10 units list.

**Bharring**

I dunno, 140 points for 2d6 S7 AP0 D1 shots with pseudorending? Not terrible. Do you know how much Marines pay for 4d3 S7 AP-2 D1 shots? With the option to overheat, signum, and cheribum?

Nightspinner has it's uses, although it's outclassed by other units. ASM has it's uses, although it's outclassed by other units.

Wraithblades? Sure, T6 helps - makes Lasguns wound on 6s! Which is great! Except you're still dying to Lasguns faster than Termies. For more points. Yes, even with 3W. Like Termies, they have their use. But it's not Shining Spears that keep them from the table - it's because nobody wants Termie-style units. Remove Shining Spears, and Wraithblades don't take their place.

If you think no weapons are good at killing them, you've never seen Plasma - overcharged or not.

I never tried to list the 10 worst units in the game. I was just listing 10 units worse than ASM. My point is ASM are bad, but not worst-10 bad.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Assault marines have the maneuverability to aggressively tie up units for 2 points cheaper than VV.

And then do less damage for the points and then the unit falls back and then your unit gets shwnot.

So at that point you NEED to do damage. Assault Marines don't cut it whatsoever. At least Vanguard can do a bunch more before dying.

Stopping a unit (or two) from shooting, and then taking more firepower from even more units is a job well done. How many points can this measly little unit tear away from shooting your other units?

Vanguard might do an extra wound or two. Yay. Unless you upgrade them for even more points, in which case you've got very different units again.

**Bharring**

... I did a mathfail. Wraithguard aren't actually dying twice as fast to Lasguns as Termies. Still, I'm not seeing Wraithguard as more effective than ASM.

**Martel732**

16 ppm is too much to just lock up units.

**Bharring**

Agreed. Not sure anyone here doesn't. But wouldn't 18 ppm be even worse to just lock a unit up, even if you did an additional wound, maybe?

**Insectum7**

Martel732 wrote:
16 ppm is too much to just lock up units.

They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though.

They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.

**mew28**

Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
16 ppm is too much to just lock up units.

They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.

Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.

**JNAProductions**

mew28 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
16 ppm is too much to just lock up units.

They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.

Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.

Multicharge?

**Slayer-Fan123**

JNAProductions wrote:
mew28 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
16 ppm is too much to just lock up units.

They are a bit too much, I agree. Definitely more than 6 though. They pay more for their Jump Packs than Vanguard, for some reason. Base cost ought to be less than a Tactical, too. I'd be happy with 14ppm, with packs.

Even that would be kinda high for what they are ATM. Two S4 attacks in CC is just not worth 14 points. Well tying stuff up dose add some value even at 14 points a head that still to expensive just to stop one unit from shooting.

Multicharge?

So you'd multicharge and then still do less damage for the points compared to Vanguard?

**JNAProductions**

Or tie up more per point than vanguard, with same odds of dying.

**Xenomancers**

Can we stop defending bad units? The whole marine line needs repricing.

**JNAProductions**

I’m curious if the damage per point of VVs is worth it against, say, Leeann Russes.

Because stopping them from shooting? Very useful. But neither unit will do much damage against them.

**mew28**

JNAProductions wrote:
I’m curious if the damage per point of VVs is worth it against, say, Leeann Russes.

Because stopping them from shooting? Very useful. But neither unit will do much damage against them.

Well VV just do 100% more damage for 2 points so even if it is VS a russ the opportunity cost of being able to hurt something else in CC a bit should the option come up kinda makes it hard to justify them.

**Gitdakka**

mew28 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
I’m curious if the damage per point of VVs is worth it against, say, Leeann Russes.

Because stopping them from shooting? Very useful. But neither unit will do much damage against them.

Well VV just do 100% more damage for 2 points so even if it is VS a russ the opportunity cost of being able to hurt something else in CC a bit should the option come up kinda makes it hard to justify them.

Hmm. My experience is that most of the damage by AM is made by the melta bomb sergeant, something the VV can't use. But what you say is probably true against light infantry or even MEQ (if your VV take some power weapons)

**jcd386**

How do you expect to get either Assault Marines or VV into combat with a Leman Russ? Any decent army is going to have screens, so I think you can only reasonably compare their effectiveness against screens, and VV are way better at it.

Both units need to see taken back to the drawing board and have enough changes made to them via special rules that they are useful in different situations now that VV aren't limited to the elite slot and assault Marines can't ever be troops.

**Unit1126PLL**

jcd386 wrote:
How do you expect to get either Assault Marines or VV into combat with a Leman Russ? Any decent army is going to have screens, so I think you can only reasonably compare their effectiveness against screens, and VV are way better at it.

Both units need to see taken back to the drawing board and have enough changes made to them via special rules that they are useful in different situations now that VV aren't limited to the elite slot and assault Marines can't ever be troops.

By flying over the screens? You do realize you have like 1800-1900 points of shooting to blast a hole in the screen before your charge and you can fly over the ragged remains yes? That's literally covered earlier in the thread where I explain how I do the exact same thing with Seraphim.

**Martel732**

Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

**Lemondish**

Xenomancers wrote:
Can we stop defending bad units? The whole marine line needs repricing.

The whole marine line should have matched Primaris stats from the beginning with 2 attacks and 2 wounds. Easier to price that out without racing to the bottom and turning them into a bloody horde army.

**Martel732**

Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.

**Rocmistro**

Guys I keep coming back around to this idea...Assault Marines...should have (wait for it...) Assault weapons. But again, that requires a full redesign.

**Martel732**

Pistol/sword are okay if there were like 12 ppm or so. 10 would be 120 plus a doodad for the sergeant.

**Lemondish**

Martel732 wrote:
Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.

The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma, and plasma kills normal expensive 1 wound marines just as quickly as it does Primaris. But with only 1 wound, they fall even faster to attrition fire as well. At their current 16 ppm, if they were blessed with 3 A and 2 W, they'd be much better than they currently are even with 2 damage weaponry everywhere. Doesn't matter if that extra point of damage is wasted - they're still dead. This boogeyman of 2 damage weaponry is overplayed.

And all I can say to those who can't use a fly unit to surround models and prevent falling back - play these scenarios out solo to get better at positioning. To those that let drop plasma land in rapid fire range - learn from these mistakes and screen out better.

Marines should be more durable than they are - yes, and they should be priced based on THAT. Maybe that comes from more auras from underutilized buff characters (marines love them auras), or maybe it comes from a statline upgrade. Either way, they should not be made into another fotm horde army. There's a midpoint between what they are now and where Custodes are - and they should fit into that spot. Not as killy, not as durable, but still elite and still durable.

**Xenomancers**

Lemondish wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Can we stop defending bad units? The whole marine line needs repricing.

The whole marine line should have matched Primaris stats from the beginning with 2 attacks and 2 wounds. Easier to price that out without racing to the bottom and turning them into a bloody horde army.

100% agree.

**Martel732**

"The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma"

No, it's not. It's a menagerie of weapons. Most notably, the insane disintegrator cannon. Also, look at a single riptide plus missilesides. It's insane.

I'd rather give up fewer points to these weapons than try to defend against them. Because you really can't.

**Xenomancers**

Lemondish wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Horde is the way to go in 8th. Actually fielding quality is usually a liability until you get up to DG and Custodes levels of durability. Currently, I think primaris marines are WORSE than old marines due to the prevalence of 2 damage and D3 damage weapons.

The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma, and plasma kills normal expensive 1 wound marines just as quickly as it does Primaris. But with only 1 wound, they fall even faster to attrition fire as well. At their current 16 ppm, if they were blessed with 3 A and 2 W, they'd be much better than they currently are even with 2 damage weaponry everywhere. Doesn't matter if that extra point of damage is wasted - they're still dead. This boogeyman of 2 damage weaponry is overplayed.

And all I can say to those who can't use a fly unit to surround models and prevent falling back - play these scenarios out solo to get better at positioning. To those that let drop plasma land in rapid fire range - learn from these mistakes and screen out better.

Marines should be more durable than they are - yes, and they should be priced based on THAT. Maybe that comes from more auras from underutilized buff characters (marines love them auras), or maybe it comes from a statline upgrade. Either way, they should not be made into another fotm horde army. There's a midpoint between what they are now and where Custodes are - and they should fit into that spot. Not as killy, not as durable, but still elite and still durable.

You seem reasonable.

What do you think about this?
Tac Marine - 14 points 2W 2A
Assault marine (jump packs) - 17 points 2W 2A
Primaris marine - 20 points 3W 2A - Stalker bolters buffed to have sniper rule at +3 points - assault bolters go to Assault 3 for +0 points - bolt rifles do double damage on 6's
VV - 21 points (jump packs) 2W 3A - special rule that they can deep strike within 6" of any friendly unit that started on the table (sterngaurd get the same statline for the same points)
Terminators - 25 points 3W 3A - Ignore negative modifiers to hit (including any terminator armor unit)
Scouts don't change at all
Chapter tactics affect all space marine units